Linux-Advocacy Digest #722, Volume #29 Wed, 18 Oct 00 05:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: A Public Service Announcement (Gardiner Family)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Gardiner Family)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (Ketil Z Malde)
Re: Ms employees begging for food (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Gardiner Family)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) ("Serge Luca")
Re: Astroturfing (2:1)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Chris Sherlock)
Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux (2:1)
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (2:1)
Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year (2:1)
Re: KDE starting to stress out a little? (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (Chris Sherlock)
Re: Why I hate Windows... (Stuart Fox)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Public Service Announcement
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:10:46 +1300
A solution in such a short time, a hell of alot faster than what
mickeysoft has to offer. If this was microsloth they would say, "the
patches will be released in our next update which will be ready in two
months time".
matt
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Oct 2000 14:20:09 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >Taken from the firewall group:
>
> Golly, and it looks like I already have all those patches installed.
>
> >Looks like it's been a busy week.
>
> Yes, usually we only see that many announcements about LookOut.
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:15:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Weevil wrote:
[...]
>The code was there. The error messages were not bogus. The message simply
>warned the DR-DOS was not supported and that bad things *might* happen if you
>used it. It was just there so Microsoft would not have to support other
>people's software.
Well, you got that right.
"Microsoft intended to scare OEMs and users, and thus eliminate DR DOS
as a competitive threat. Microsoftıs intentions were clearly stated by
Brad Silverberg. David Cole sent Silverberg an e-mail asking, "what is
the guy is supposed to do" when he sees the false error message?
Silverberg responded:
"What the guy is supposed to do is feel uncomfortable, and when he has
bugs, suspect that the problem is DR DOS and then go out to buy MS-DOS.
Or decide to not take the risk for the other machines he has to buy for
in the office."
>> We faked the whole court case, and you caught us at
>> it! Brilliant!
>
>The court case is essentially faked.
LOL!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:17:49 +1300
except with a nice GUI, unfortunately I am one of those dumb, only use
console as a last resort types.
matt
Bob Hauck wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 13:48:35 +1300, Matthew Gardiner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >a decent mail client would be one that is a mail client and usenet
> >client, that is small, fast and feature rich (such as spell checkers).
>
> Like...Pine?
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:20:18 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Peter da Silva in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <vSPE5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Actually, Notepad is an app that should only take any decent developer
>a few
>> >> hours to write.
>> >
>> >I should hope so. You could write a Notepad clone in Tcl, sans printing,
>in a
>> >few minutes. The idea that it'd take a couple of weeks boggles me, as
>does the
>> >fact that Microsoft hasn't replaced it with a 32-bit application.
>>
>> Neither Tcl, nor a less-than-outrageously-pathetic text editor on
>> Windows, provide sufficient debilitating crappiness to ensure that there
>> will a) never be a convenient way to use both a competitive system and
>> Microsoft crapware, and b) never be enough functionality easily
>> available to the non-expert end user that they might become
>> knowledgeable enough to understand how crappy Windows is.
>
>*yawn* you're getting boring, Max.
Hahahaha. No, sorry, it doesn't work on me, Simon. ;-D
>BTW: Peter -- writing the same app in WFC/VJ++6 or Visual Basic -- or heck,
>MFC, also takes only a few minutes.
That's because you're only creating a shell for Microsoft's
functionality, meaning you have nothing to support profitability except
continuing to support the monopoly.
>or an appropriate comparison to what we
>were talking about, how long would it take you to write it in C talking
>directly to X? That's the closest equivalent.
>
>Or, perhaps GTK at a push.
Or perhaps not. Writing an OS that supports Notepad like Windows does
is all we have ever been talking about, though you have tried mightily
to redirect the discussion to writing Notepad itself.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
From: Ketil Z Malde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 07:20:01 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Revenues down 20% from hundreds of billions vs revenues up 270%
> from nothing doesn't really mean a whole heck of a lot.
It could mean that the cash value of the software market is
shrinking. If free software becomes a (more and more) viable
alternative, it means that pure software companies will struggle to
keep their niches, and they'll eventually die off. OTOH companies
that are consumers of software are likely to benefit, and in
particular I'd expect an increased demand for consultants and
programmers.
Invest in consultancy companies with high technical competence, system
integrators that aren't too dependent on particular software, and
hardware manufacturers instead.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.os.netware.misc
Subject: Re: Ms employees begging for food
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 03:25:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>What's the P/E ratio of MS vs RedHat. That's the real metric here.
No its not. Stock values have nothing to do with technology. In the
current disfunctional market dominated by an illegal monopoly, they are
even more greatly disconnected; stock prices don't even have anything to
do with products, but revolve around speculative lock-in monopolization
value.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 20:25:12 +1300
considering the whole of the New Zealand's financial sector relys on the RBNZ, it
just goes to show that they are not willing to take chances on NT, even with all
the hype surrounding, and I say, it is a good move the RBNZ made.
matt
Gardiner Family wrote:
> adam, gid-day from a fellow kiwi. Here are some sites that use linux/UNIX for
> their website:
>
> WINZ (Work and Income New Zealand)
> New Zealand Government Website
> Telecom
> ihug
> zfree
> majority of proxy servers in New Zealand
> RNBNZ (IBM AIX)
>
> the list goes on and on, Windows NT is a product that never lived up to its
> supposed "UNIX Smashing" reputation that was originally declared by bill gates
> back in 1993-1994.
>
> Matt
>
> Adam Warner wrote:
>
> > Hi Chad,
> >
> > >> 1) 2xNT4 or Window 2000 Server licenses to provide RAID1 on both
> > >> computers.
> > >
> > > Windows 2000 professional will do all this.
> >
> > I wasn't aware I could set up software RAID using Win2k Professional. The
> > only ability I could find was to set up a larger logical partition.
> >
> > >
> > >> 2) 4xCPU licences for MS-SQL.
> > >
> > > MSDE (essentially a free copy of MS SQL Server 7.0 limited to 2GB of db
> > > size) is free and runs on everything from Win95 to Win2000 DC server.
> >
> > What does "essentially a free" mean? Will this mean I won't be able to use
> > the server to also serve content?
> >
> > >> 3) 1xMS Proxy Server(?)
> > >
> > > Win2K has ICS (with NAT functionality) built in.
> >
> > Odd, I wasn't aware it came with firewalling, which was part of the
> > requirement.
> >
> > >> 4) 1xOffice 2000 Premium for Mail client, Frontpage, etc.
> > >
> > > Outlook Express is free and comes with IE which is free. FrontPage is
> > > not necessary for web development, in fact, it's not recommeneded unless
> > > you've never written one line of HTML in your life.
> >
> > I did ask for a "full MS solution" (probably unfair).
> >
> > > So the list actually comes down to:
> > >
> > > 1.) 2 x copies of Win2K Professional at ~ $200ea. You can get OEM prices
> > > since you purchased new hardware, contact your vendor.
> > >
> > > That's it!
> >
> > Jason addresses the licensing issues.
> >
> > <snip>
> > > Sure, it's anecdotal, but then, you really haven't provided any evidence
> > > to the contrary.
> >
> > Funny, I don't need anecdotal evidence, they're working right now!
> >
> > >> Or more importantly, who really believes MS can sustain a lower TCO if
> > >> a MS solution is indeed more attractive at this point in time?
> > >
> > > Everyone who has deployed an MS solution properly and is reaping the
> > > benefits.
> >
> > Well you'd have to because the costs are so great :-)
> >
> > <snip>
> > >> and the development rate appears much faster.
> > >
> > > And quality has fallen through the floor as a result. Cite: Red Hat
> > > 2500+ bugs in a rushed 7.0 release.
> >
> > Haven't noticed any significant ones yet (apart from being hacked off that
> > they didn't compile in the IDE backport, making the installation rather
> > difficult. They will finally be officially included in the 2.4 kernel
> > though).
> >
> > Rushed? I've been waiting for it for ages.
> >
> > At least I can be rather optimistic that bugs will be fixed, and rather
> > rapidly. And am actually able to converse with developers. And won't be
> > told to buy the next version to get bug fixes.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam
------------------------------
From: "Serge Luca" <(nospam)[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 09:20:30 +0200
<<Windows does have its uses, however, not as a server...>>
ok, take a look at www.tcp.org
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:04:32 +0100
> MCSE is a hardware and networking certification. It has nothing to do with
> programming. That's the MCSD (Microsoft Certified Solution Developer) and
> has been in existance for at least 5 years.
Certified solution developer ?! ROFL!!!
-Ed
> An MCP is a Certified Professional, and is sort of a catch-all. Anyone that
> has any MS certification (or has completed at least one test) is an MCP, but
> you have to complete specific tests for specific certifications.
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:13:28 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> "Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > mlw wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike Byrns wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 2:1 wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > Actually, it's not. Win2K is way more stable than Linux. FUDsters
> like
> > > > > > to bash NT for stability and then claim that Linux is stable,
> which in
> > > > > > and of itself is a joke.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chad, you're talking horseshit again. Win2K hasn't been around long
> > > > > enough to proove if it is more stable than Linux. The longest Linux
> > > > > uptimes are longer than the total life of Win2K.
> > > >
> > > > Where are those numbers? We're not talking peak are we :-) I've had
> an NT
> > > > 3.51 box running for 3 years. We decommissioned it.
> > >
> > > By running, do you mean 24x7 with no reboots?
> > >
> > > When UNIX (Sun, FreeBSD, Linux, HP, etc.) people say "running" they
> > > mean, on and up. It has been my experience when NT people say running,
> > > them mean with a particular install and periodic service packages and
> > > reboots.
> >
> > This is my experience also. At my last firm, they a) could not afford to
> > run Windows NT because of the immense cost of licenses, and b) it truly
> > was too unstable and unreliable. These machines needed to run a SQL
> > server and DHCP servers. They also had to be the intermediary to the
> > outside world (admittedly through a router, but they had to perform NAT
> > and IP filtering before it reached the router). It also had to be able
> > to do basic snmp trapping, and it had to run a web proxy but that's
> > another story.
> >
> > Could you imagine trying to do this on a Windows NT box?
>
> Why Imagine? I've done it. Am doing it. You describe NOTHING unusual
> whatsoever. In fact, you are under utilizing the box if the SQL load isn't
> heavy.
So you are running DHCP, you are routing considerable amounts of
Internet traffic through that computer and you are running a proxy
server on that same computer *while* running SQL at a high load? Hey,
I'm impressed! What sort of computer are you running to be able to do
this?
At my old firm they were running Celerons and PIIs without much of a
problem. What is the minimum configuration of an NT box? For that matter
what is the minimum configuration of a Windows 2000 server?
The next question is: how much is this all costing you. Suppose you had
to deploy 100 servers all doing what I described. Wouldn't this cost a
fair amount of money?
> >Could you
> > imagine trying to remotely monitor AND maintain such computers?
>
> Not only imagine, but actually doing now. Whats the big deal?
>
> > Unfortunately the firm had buggy software which would die or degrade
> > very badly. On the Linux box you would simply ssh onto it, kill and
> > restart the process.
>
> Kinda like how I remotely kill processes on NT servers?
How do you do this? How much of an overhead does it take to do this? Any
more/less than shelling into a Unix/Linux box with secure shell?
> >Remote upgrades? Sure, you needed to have someone
> > on-site in case something weird happened, but then again, so what? On a
> > Windows NT computer it would be far too expensive to implement, far too
> > unstable and far too slow for the hardware that it was running on. If a
> > process did get out of hand, how would you kill it remotely? We are
> > talking international monitoring here, btw. How would you restart it?
> > Get someone to go to the computer and reboot the computer? This is not a
> > very viable option, I am afraid.
>
> If the box is still reachable just send the restart command one of several
> ways. What's the big deal? Have you actually ever even seen NT?
> >
> > In short, Windows NT was not even an option.
> It seems you didn't even try.
True, I *didn't* try. Then again, I wasn't the guy developing the
system. They did use Windows NT 4 on some of the billing interfaces, and
the grief that we got from them was unbeleivable.
The other reason that they used Linux was because they could get to the
source and make modifications or develope applications quite easily.
> >
> > > I could be wrong, but it seems to me an uptime of three years requires a
> > > very good infrastructure with no power glitches. Also, Windows NT 3.51
> > > had AFAIR some pretty notable memory leaks which could cause problems if
> > > not rebooted.
>
> Holy shit, NT3.51?
>
> > >
> > > Seriously, Windows NT (at its core) is a very good OS, it is based on
> > > VMS after all. It is the Win32 subsystem and the kernel code required
> > > there in, which causes instability. Win32 was not designed to be a
> > > secure robust environment, so as a requirement of implementation of it
> > > they (MS) had to make compromises in the NT kernel space which makes it
> > > unsuitable for many applications.
>
> Actually, it IS designed for just such a thing but I think you are just
> making this up as you go along so what would facts matter to you?
>
> > >
> > > The first indication that Microsoft was not serious about the enterprise
> > > was Windows NT 4.0, when they moved GUI code down into kernel space.
> > > Windows 2000 took this trend to new disgusting levels.
>
> Kinda like how Tux had to run in the kernel space in order to produce the
> first competition for IIS?
What about Apache? That doesn't run in kernel space, and it is a
competitor for IIS.
> >
> > Crap. I was going to point out that you were wrong, but hey, you know
> > what? MS really *did* put the GUI back into the kernel area. They even
> > say so themselves at
> > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/winnt/winntas/technote/ntunixvw.asp I
> > quote: "(Editor's note: With Windows NT version 4.0, the GUI system was
> > put "back" into the kernel for display performance considerations.)"
>
> Fortunately with the GUI as stable as it is now this is no longer any kinda
> of problem.
My point is that is it really necessary for the GUI to take resources
away from the system in order to run a server?
> >
> > That *really* sucks! I admit that I am no Windows NT fan, but no
> > *wonder* people don't use it for mission critical things without needing
> > to do advanced load-sharing methods. I can't believe that a GUI would
> > play such an important part of a server O/S!
>
> What you can't (or, mostly likely, won't) believe and what is casual fact
> are obviously two different things
Well, why is a GUI really needed? You don't need a GUI to run a web
server.
> >
> > > I am concerned that Linux is making the same sorts of compromises,
> > > however, I am confident that it will always be "optional."
>
> How is that? What makes you think the forking of linux won't continue
> unabated?
Exactly what forking of Linux are you talking about????
> again, have you even TRIED NT?
Have you ever tried Linux? I *have* tried NT, just not extensively.
Chris
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A classic example of unfriendly Linux
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:17:54 +0100
Darn fine post.
> I do not believe that people are born stupid. But they do
> try to give this impression.
I quite agree with this. Some people are not born too bright. Becoming
idiots only happens when they insist that if they can't do it, it must
be bad and noone should do it.
> There is nothing stopping you from doing your own math. There
> is nothing stopping you from setting up your own unix server.
> There is no real excuse why you should be paying me to do it
> for you.
Exactly. And now back to my maths (diff equatons, eigen*, as it
happens)...
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:24:14 +0100
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>
> "Marc Alsina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:RB4H5.118$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Meanwhile, still waiting for GNUstep to take over the world after these
> > > two giants destroy each other...
> >
> > The world has already been silently taken by ... iceWM ;-)
> >
>
> PFFFFF!!!.......*WINDOWMAKER*
Ha. FVWM2(*not win95/98 style) rules here. Fantastic VWM, to me.
Some people insist on using the old twm. There's no hope...
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IDC Estimates Linux growth at 183% per year
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 10:31:42 +0100
Gardiner Family wrote:
>
> I am suprised that Microsoft is still selling Windows, considering that 80%
> of their revenue comes from Microsoft Office. If I was the CEO from
> Microsoft I would open source Windows (both NT and 98), combine the good
> aspects of GNU/LINUX and Windows and release a Microsoft Linux.
> Considering, in the near future OSs will play a smaller role as applications
> will move onto the web and all processing made centralised, either via a web
> browser or Citrix Winframe client (which is available for many platforms).
They have the monopoly on the OS, though. This props up the other
monopolies. If they OSS Windows, wine will cease being beta very quickly
and the OS monopoly would have vanished in a puff of smoke. The direct
revenues from windows may be low, but the position it puts them in is
worth a lot.
-Ed
--
Konrad Zuse should recognised. He built the first | Edward Rosten
binary digital computer (Z1, with floating point) the | Engineer
first general purpose computer (the Z3) and the first | u98ejr@
commercial one (Z4). | eng.ox.ac.uk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:49:33 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: KDE starting to stress out a little?
Where would you find that email exchange?
Chris
Navindra Umanee wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Check this out:
> >
> > http://dot.kde.org/971680096/
>
> Remember that Ivan is the guy who has been single-handedly maintaining
> Debian packages since the days when there was no official Debian
> support. Us KDE/Linux users have crashed his servers and taxed his
> resources many times over. It's truly amazing that he's lasted this
> long without complaining once -- and he really was provoked by a quite
> exasperating email exchange (I've seen snippets). Not easy sometimes.
>
> Note also, that Ivan is not leaving people in the cold. He is still
> the maintainer of the official KDE Debian packages *and* all his
> sources are CVS. He has also offered to sponsor Debian developers
> willing to help with other KDE packages.
>
> -N.
> --
> "These download files are in Microsoft Word 6.0 format. After unzipping,
> these files can be viewed in any text editor, including all versions of
> Microsoft Word, WordPad, and Microsoft Word Viewer." [Microsoft website]
> < http://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~navindra/editors/ >
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 19:49:50 +1000
From: Chris Sherlock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Did any of you guys play the Kings Quest or Space Quest series? They
were mad games!
Chris
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I don't think I played that one. I had Missle Command though.
>
> claire
>
> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 11:36:04 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> I used to play Stargate on Atari console :)
> >>
> >> Damm I feel old :)
> >
> >Did you ever play `Thrust'? That was a really cool game too. I spent
> >*far* too long playing it.
> >
> >-Ed
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> claire
> >>
> >> On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:22:10 +0100, 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >> (I have something even older -- a Stargate clone that runs on CGA,
> >> >> off a floppy that has to be booted into, Last time I tried to run *that*,
> >> >> it ran, but so ridiculously fast one can't see anything. :-) )
> >> >
> >> >You obviously have bad taste in old games :-)
> >> >If you were playing, say, Alley Cat, for instance (a good game,
> >> >naturally), you would have found that not only was it a good game, but
> >> >it was also well written (except that quit leaves you in CGA mode
> >> >heigh-ho.) - it works at the right speed on a P133.
> >> >
> >> >Now I have to get hold of a copy of digger from the old IBMs too, coz
> >> >that was a good game too...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >-Ed
------------------------------
From: Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:51:33 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
bobh{at}haucks{dot}org wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Oct 2000 09:43:36 GMT, Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >You are aware you can use an IMAP client with the Exchange server
> >(provided your admins have not disabled IMAP support, and also
>
> Yes, and an LDAP client can access the address book. Netscape mail
> works fine with a little tweaking.
>
> >providing you can find a SMTP server that will let you send through
it)?
>
> Yeah, Exchange 5.5 seems to be unable to relay for a specified IP
block
> only, just all or nothing. Or maybe it is just our admin. Anyway, I
> just use one of our Linux machines to send through.
Yep, you're right. It is just your admin, you can do this as well.
Using a Linux box to relay off is a better option anyway, as sendmail
et al are actual mail relay products, as opposed to the Exchange IMS
which is better described as a SMTP gateway...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
